On Apr 23, 2019, at 10:02 PM, Tod Fitch <[email protected]> wrote: > You are a brave person to try to get this organized.
That IS how it feels, thank you for that recognition! I'm might be thought of as more of a single person initiating dialog (with my shoulders shrugged) than a full-fledged "organizer." I suppose I'll find myself in whatever role the community offers and we'll all trudge through it together. I don't think there is a "leader," more like a lot of opinions which deserve to be heard (making it yet harder) and wrapped up into what hopefully turns into a solution. > I am not sure how one could make a blanket categorization based on the little > part of the world I am familiar with. The examples you give are all too familiar to me, yet I believe that OSM does a decent job of tagging all of them, with the exception that leisure=park being freshly more precisely defined dumps serious buckets of sludge into how things are presently tagged here. And I suspect in many places, not just California or USA. > You have contradictions: A city park that is a protected area, a national > park that is basically a city park, a couple of county parks that fall on > both sides, and land protected by a non-governmental entity. It is complicated, I know. We frequently tag our best, yet without more clear answers to the simple question "how do I tag a county park?" (except to slog through a decade of history and multiple wiki pages) I feel dejected, even exhausted. I see no good solution forward. > Closer to my new home, the Capistrano Beach Park (Orange County), the San > Clemente city beaches and the adjacent Calafia State Beach (California State) > are pretty much indistinguishable other than the color and style of the life > guard towers. Why would you tag them with different park_level values? > The park_level tag mentioned on your wiki page does not seem to give much > information beyond what can already be provided by the operator and owner > tags so I don’t see that this helps the situation. The park_level tag is an "auxiliary tag" which is not the solution, it acts to supplement any operator/owner tags. However, just as admin_level does, park_level could help rendering, meaning national parks could eventually render differently than state, county or city parks. Whether the border is differently "dashed" or differently colored hasn't yet been discussed. > Given the diversity here, it would not surprise me if the rest of the world > has even more contradictions and exceptions to any simplistic rule we may > come up with. Other than perhaps the “duck rule” (if it quacks like a duck, > assume it is a duck). Maybe the local mapper(s) should be asked to decide if > the park falls into the “protected area” category vs “leisure/recreation” > category. That decision might involve non-binary information as many > protected areas include provision for some types of limited recreation. And > at least some urban/suburban parks include areas that are left as close to > nature as possible for various reasons which may include protection for > specific species, etc. I know. I understand that leisure=park being more narrowly defined is a step in the right direction, but it has the oddly contradictory effect of tagging what really are park-like entities much more difficult. The conundrum continues. SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
